Selling images of national trust sites.

[dan123]

Originally Posted by rbarry

As you were saying, the National Trust is a lovely hard working public spirited organisation!

........

Originally Posted by GeoffWessex

The line hssutton quoted from the NT "any photographs taken are strictly for private use, and enquiries about selling or publishing photographs should be directed to....." needs to be thought out a little more.

By those words, you couldn't show it at your camera club, either for competition or exhibition, or even 'publish' it anywhere online, like Flickr, Picasa, or here, without asking permission.

i think they need ot be clearer and make it easier to understand some of the phrases, but i think when they mean publish that would be for mags and books in my opinion..

Dan

[GeoffWessex]

I agree, Dan, but that's in our opinions...... if somebody wanted to take us to court I don't think opinions would matter so much. But you're right, "publish" is a word that's very open to different interpretation, though, legally, I believe publishing includes posting online. And, after all, it's not, in their terms, "strictly for private use".

[KeithT]

Originally Posted by dan123

Hi guys,

this seems to be a very Grey and touchy area,
I have many images of national trust sites, or images that were taken on them such as forests and famous marks.
I have been asked if mine are for purchase..
so what do i do, ive heard a lot of different opinions on this, some have said i need a release from them, some say i need it uploaded to thier galleries to sell and others say all sorts of things.
and if any one can explain it for a simpleton like me that would be great

Cheers Guys,

Dan

Info in this article, if info is correct, may actually throw the NT rights issue into some array. It could be that they actually don't have much of a leg to stand on if they tried to enforce this copyright issue on photographers. I'm no lawyer though and it would have to be checked. However, it wouldn't be worthwhile them bringing the matter to court with such low fines.

http://copyrightaction.com/forum/nat...aws-in-a-twist

[Markulous]

Originally Posted by OldBoy

I was under the impression that NT were changing their policy on photography of their sites.

They did clamp down on all photography (when they set up their own library of images and "generously" allowed some volunteers to take pictures and assign the copyright over to the NT!) but found they lost a lot of members and so subsequently have eased up.

Personally, we don't visit them any more due to their attitude generally (and specifically during the clampdown) but, to be fair, they don't have any different rules on commerciality than most other organisations, institutions, gardens, buildings, etc

[wavemachine]

Well I to have prints from NT sites mainly woodlands that are free to enter as well as coastal and thought I would ask, I e-mailed yesterday and got a response today:-

Dear David,

Thank you for your email. We do not restrict commercial photography taken on public land, apart from for advertising purposes.

You do not therefore require permission to use images taken on NT land so long as this is not private, pay upon entry land.

Kind regards,

Along the same line as the reply Dan got.

[Dorsetman]

Im a member of the NT and have been for many years. The main problem with them is that they are still stagnant in their approach to younger people and new technologies. Lets face it, you can paint there and go sell your picture so what's the difference, interpretation maybe but that's it.

I will support the NT where I can but they seriously need to wake up and stop being so greedy. If they carry on like it, you wont be able to take a picture in the Lake District as they own most of it nor anywhere else remotely pretty!

Adam

[Kerry Holt]

i thought it was because people took pictured then they kept getting robbed of their ornaments and things, I'm sure thats why some places say no and because the flashes damage old stuff aparently.

[jet_kit]

Originally Posted by dan123

Well ive emailed them as directed on the website.... the wait begins.............

dan

Try putting the boot on the other foot. Give them a deadline of, say, a month, after which permission will be deemed to have been granted.

Legally, this will not have any real standing, but if they do pursue you after this time they will have to explain to a Judge why they are so inept that they couldn't reply to a simple email in a month. It's unlikely they'll want to do that and they won't bother you.

I did this with a car once. It broke down quite catastrophically two months out of warranty. They refused to do anything about it, so I sued them. I told them that I didn't expect to win but I just wanted to be in court when they told a judge that they were happy to sell a car for (quite a few) thousand pounds and didn't expect it to last more than 14 months. Also that I would invite the press to witness the statement.
They fixed it for nothing, and provided a replacement car or equal quality while they did so.

[dan123]

Hmmm yes chris, that would have been what i wo0uld have done, if i didnt get no reply, Howver the people who own stonehenge bever got back to me so i have adopted this approch to them, but i cant see any problems, im to stubborn for it to be worth it